The Chancellor received plaudits for the political nous of his Budget, not least his willingness to steal so many of Labour’s clothes. But there was at least one garment George should have left to the opposition – knee-jerk banker bashing.

The sins of the banking industry are legion and I would not wish to be seen as an apologist for those failings. But the announcement of an eight per cent extra tax on banking profits from 2016 makes no sense, either as a measure to improve banking behaviour, or as sensible economic policy.

It is, however, an easy target for a Chancellor keen to raise few bob. A Chancellor who knows that if there is one group the public will not feel sorry for it is banks. Combined with other changes to bank taxes, the measure will raise an extra £2billion.

Easy target: The announcement of an eight per cent extra tax on banking profits from 2016 makes no sense, writes Simon Watkins

I cannot understand why this makes sense. It is a windfall tax by another name. Do we object to banks making profit? Presumably not, since a profitable banking sector is essential if we are to avoid having to bail them out again. Do we think banks make too much profit because there is exploitation of customers or inadequate competition? If that is the case, the remedy is improved competition or tougher regulation.

Share this article

RELATED ARTICLES

Share this article

Share

Perhaps the logic is that banks have cost us all dear and should just be made to pay more back? In which case, why apply a tax across the board, including to the newer challenger banks?

These banks are (so far) innocent of the sins of the past and should be part of the new competitive environment that might improve the industry as a whole. The extra tax is a cheap shot and the Chancellor needs to think again.

-----

The defenestration of St Antony, as last week’s events at Barclays are sure to be known to banking historians, was a brutal affair.

Although it came out the blue, it is clear that a plan to replace Antony Jenkins as chief executive has been in train for some time. Fellow directors doubted his ability to reform and sustain the investment banking business.

Indeed, Jenkins’s background in retail banking had led some in the City to call him ‘the shopkeeper’. This reflects an arrogance among some in the investment banking industry towards their retail colleagues, seeing them as the pedestrian counterparts to their swashbuckling derring-do.

Barclays may need a new figure to navigate its rehabilitation and nurture the investment bank. But the sense that there are still two cultures – high street and Wall Street – is worrying.

Barclays is almost alone in Britain as a bank still apparently committed to both types of business. Bridging the culture gap is essential if it is to prove that the two types of banking can live under one roof.